Health care should definitely be affordable. Goes without saying. From all I've seen, as soon as the government gets involved the costs escalate and the service goes down; there is yet another layer of fraud and corruption, and the public tax-payer suffers yet again.

If the federal government can ensure that costs will be held to reasonable rates, while quality continues to be the best possible, then I support the government to do so.

So far Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have utterly failed to convince me they are up to the job. Not when they haven't even read the legislation they want to force down our throats. No way.

My concern is about my grandkids, both of whom are not covered by any insurance... what happens if they get into an accident, or incur some type of disease... there are no good choices, jury is still out on a public option as concerns about the cost.. otoh not all that enamored with the state of private health insurance, which has gotten very inpersonal and morphed into some useless paper generating machine that sends me mail about twice a week showing how they are paying the costs and when I have a question, I call and the computer tells me how long I have to wait..

Had Blue Cross early on, but they switched me to United Health.. aside from making me change,do not find United Health all that friendly or easy to speak with in the event of a question...

Premiums have increased, co-pays have increased.. fortunately have chosen a good set of doctors that take this insurance, but that can change as most have personally voiced their displeasure with United Health.

Health care should definitely be affordable. Goes without saying. From all I've seen, as soon as the government gets involved the costs escalate and the service goes down; there is yet another layer of fraud and corruption, and the public tax-payer suffers yet again.

If the federal government can ensure that costs will be held to reasonable rates, while quality continues to be the best possible, then I support the government to do so.

So far Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have utterly failed to convince me they are up to the job. Not when they haven't even read the legislation they want to force down our throats. No way.//

Click to expand...

I don't understand why they have to create a "war & peace" document.
They should make multiple small changes instead of one huge change
which is bound to include pet pork projects that have nothing to do
with health care.

My concern is about my grandkids, both of whom are not covered by any insurance... what happens if they get into an accident, or incur some type of disease... there are no good choices, jury is still out on a public option as concerns about the cost.. otoh not all that enamored with the state of private health insurance, which has gotten very inpersonal and morphed into some useless paper generating machine that sends me mail about twice a week showing how they are paying the costs and when I have a question, I call and the computer tells me how long I have to wait..

Had Blue Cross early on, but they switched me to United Health.. aside from making me change,do not find United Health all that friendly or easy to speak with in the event of a question...

Premiums have increased, co-pays have increased.. fortunately have chosen a good set of doctors that take this insurance, but that can change as most have personally voiced their displeasure with United Health.

Click to expand...

I agree with you.

I worry about coverage for my children if I lose my job.
The odds of my company keeping me to the age of 64 are slim.

I had to change doctors again this year when my company dropped
Tufts & switched to Cigna. We were lucky that my childrens pediatrician
accepted Cigna. My daughter has to go to Childrens Hospital yearly for
tests. We are hoping her specialist accepts Cigna.

In 1985 I paid zero for top of the line coverage withno copays.
I now pay alot for mediocre at best coverage with high copays.
Same company..... different management..... too many merges.

I don't understand why they have to create a "war & peace" document.
They should make multiple small changes instead of one huge change
which is bound to include pet pork projects that have nothing to do
with health care.

Click to expand...

Last I read there were something like 575 amendments.. which is not surprising for out elected leaders on the hill...

I don't understand why they have to create a "war & peace" document.
They should make multiple small changes instead of one huge change
which is bound to include pet pork projects that have nothing to do
with health care.

Click to expand...

My point exactly. Any document this long, convoluted, confusing, and requiring a law degree and a medical degree just to read MUST be one huge scam. It's like the IRS laws: all these people in Congress go to Washington as paupers then become BILLIONAIRES once they get there!! WRONG!!! :steamed:

Health Care needs fixing but some unknown Government Run Plan should not be forced onto the people, a new plan should be drawn up and then STUDIED by both sides in Congress & The Senate and also by a Team of Medical Professionals.

I don't trust Obama, I don't trust those grinning lap dogs that trot along behind Pelosi, there is a reason that Obama and his Groupies want that bill rushed through and that reason is they don't want us to know whats buried in it until it is to late.

The Town Hall Tea Partiers are the people that will save us from
"THE UNKNOWN SH!T"

Public Option will result in single payer, nationalized health care. If that's what you want, great, but understand that will be the result. Why ? To get the "affordability" you are looking for the only way the public option can do it is with massive government subsidies which results in the public option putting the non subsidized health insurers out of business.

As I have heard Pawlenty say several times, it's all crap (my word not his) unless you get costs down. Tort reform. Allow insurers to insure across state lines. Reduce the number of things covered so that insurance is for bigger ticket items which would bring insurance costs down.

Public Option will result in single payer, nationalized health care. If that's what you want, great, but understand that will be the result. Why ? To get the "affordability" you are looking for the only way the public option can do it is with massive government subsidies which results in the public option putting the non subsidized health insurers out of business.

As I have heard Pawlenty say several times, it's all crap (my word not his) unless you get costs down. Tort reform. Allow insurers to insure across state lines. Reduce the number of things covered so that insurance is for bigger ticket items which would bring insurance costs down.

Click to expand...

I strongly agree with the need for tort reform. We'll never see it, though, because lawyers are against it and Congress is made of lawyers. They're like a union for the lawyers. It would be like getting municipal departments to cut their pensions or reduce their benefits, except it's lawyers who will simply manipulate the system once again to restore their ability to screw people. I'm nopt very hopeful about that option, and we hear very little about it coming from the lawyer union bosses (Congress).

Health care should definitely be affordable. Goes without saying. From all I've seen, as soon as the government gets involved the costs escalate and the service goes down; there is yet another layer of fraud and corruption, and the public tax-payer suffers yet again.

If the federal government can ensure that costs will be held to reasonable rates, while quality continues to be the best possible, then I support the government to do so.

So far Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have utterly failed to convince me they are up to the job. Not when they haven't even read the legislation they want to force down our throats. No way.

//

Click to expand...

I can tell you haven't had to purchase health insurance lately.

I pay $1200 per month for a family plan. It's very good and I could pay less, but that's still a lot for what we use it for. I think I'm like a lot of Americans who use health insurance very little.

Insurance companies are making a killing on all fronts because they are incestuous with the hospitals and the doctor groups. The money source is the government (us) and the private payers (individuals and employers). The money gets processed by the insurance companies who take their cut, goes down to the hospitals and medical practice groups who take their cut, and finally down to the doctors, sup[port staff, pharma (who get their cuts at multiple levels), and hardware suppliers. The insurance companies then jump in again and take more from the doctors in the form of malpractice insurance, which leads us back to the lawyers, of course.

Don't tell me that the "system" we have in place is working. It needs to be blown up starting with insurance companies. They are not needed, but have built themselves defenses and mechanisms that keep them perpetually involved yet unnecessary.

I haven't even touched on the dynamic of compensation for doctors based on procedures as opposed to the health of their patients.

Tort reform is a right wing buzz word, while in reality it is a state's rights issue... that is where the reform is needed. Just more gobbly gook to confuse the issue... if there was a suggestion for Tort Reform from Obama, then a right wing shyt storm would ensue, as he is some how trampling on state's rights..

Tort reform is a right wing buzz word, while in reality it is a state's rights issue... that is where the reform is needed. Just more gobbly gook to confuse the issue... if there was a suggestion for Tort Reform from Obama, then a right wing shyt storm would ensue, as he is some how trampling on state's rights..

Click to expand...

That's true. I didn't think of that.

How easy would it be for states to pass Tort reform? Not very, I'm guessing, for the same reasons.

Tort reform is a right wing buzz word, while in reality it is a state's rights issue... that is where the reform is needed. Just more gobbly gook to confuse the issue... if there was a suggestion for Tort Reform from Obama, then a right wing shyt storm would ensue, as he is some how trampling on state's rights..

Click to expand...

I think it's a buzz word for both sides! They could do things to drive the cost down on premiums but it does'nt seem to be on the table. Speaking of states, why are'nt they willing to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. The whole manged care system is fudging things up. They give you the sense of control and savings, the reality is it's an illusion. What about standardizing a baseline of entry level health care. Make every company nationwide compete on the same thing on price. You get a great starting point plan, a potential cobra option for in between jobs. You establish what the coverage is so no one get's screwed.

I think it's a buzz word for both sides! They could do things to drive the cost down on premiums but it does'nt seem to be on the table. Speaking of states, why are'nt they willing to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. The whole manged care system is fudging things up. They give you the sense of control and savings, the reality is it's an illusion. What about standardizing a baseline of entry level health care. Make every company nationwide compete on the same thing on price. You get a great starting point plan, a potential cobra option for in between jobs. You establish what the coverage is so no one get's screwed.

Click to expand...

That would be difficult because then you'd get into Fed control, which needs national consensus, which ain't happening because then we need to include the stupid states whose sheep do what the corporations tell them to do.

Tort reform is a right wing buzz word, while in reality it is a state's rights issue... that is where the reform is needed. Just more gobbly gook to confuse the issue... if there was a suggestion for Tort Reform from Obama, then a right wing shyt storm would ensue, as he is some how trampling on state's rights..

(CNSNews.com) - Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, a medical doctor who served as governor of Vermont, said at a town hall meeting on Tuesday night that Democrats in Congress did not include tort reform in the health care bill because they were fearful of ‚Äútaking on‚ÄĚ the trial lawyers.

‚ÄúThis is the answer from a doctor and a politician,‚ÄĚ said Dean. ‚ÄúHere is why tort reform is not in the bill. When you go to pass a really enormous bill like that the more stuff you put in, the more enemies you make, right? And the reason why tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on, and that is the plain and simple truth. Now, that‚Äôs the truth.‚ÄĚ

I think it's a buzz word for both sides! They could do things to drive the cost down on premiums but it does'nt seem to be on the table. Speaking of states, why are'nt they willing to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. The whole manged care system is fudging things up. They give you the sense of control and savings, the reality is it's an illusion. What about standardizing a baseline of entry level health care. Make every company nationwide compete on the same thing on price. You get a great starting point plan, a potential cobra option for in between jobs. You establish what the coverage is so no one get's screwed.

Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of selling insurance across state lines. That does nothing to control the actual rise in the cost of care. All it does is penalize people who live in states where insurance is cheaper, to subisidize the people who live in states where it's more expensive. It's a gimmick policy, and sadly, we have too many of those types of idea's being bandied about. Tort reform I support, cuz it actually does attempt to control costs.

The focus should be on the actual cost of care, and not on the cost of coverage. Bring the cost of care down, and the cost of coverage will follow. Bring the cost of coverage down, and you do nothing to slow the rapidcly rising cost of care. Look at Massachusetts as an example. Insuring more people, or subsizing coverage for others, has done nothing to curb the rising cost of care.

The focus should be on the actual cost of care, and not on the cost of coverage. Bring the cost of care down, and the cost of coverage will follow. Bring the cost of coverage down, and you do nothing to slow the rapidcly rising cost of care. Look at Massachusetts as an example. Insuring more people, or subsizing coverage for others, has done nothing to curb the rising cost of care.

Click to expand...

I still say over insurance is a problem. I went to a dermatologist to have him look at a little growth to see if I should have it removed. One look, literally one minute. He said is just benign, no issue. I paid a $20 co pay which is fine. And the insurance paid $110. If people had to pay out of their pocket they wouldn't charge $130 for a one minute visit because people would choose not to go.

Do to medical care--47 cents of every dollar already comes from the gubmit--what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have done to our floundering fiasco of a mortgage market.

Yeap, works for me.

Here's a better idea rather than the multiyear installment of single payer, which is what a public option would be: 1) tort reform like California's had for years; 2) permit open competition of health care insurers who currently can't compete except on a ridiculous state-by-state basis; 3) mandate that everyone pays a co-pay of $20.

I'm not pleased that a ten-year program in NH, NH Gold, the state's CHIP, has absolutely no co-pay. I had to sign a paper just to notify the doctor office that my children were not on it.

These recipients of the program have an incentive to overutilize the system. It's like giving free donuts to cops and DarrylS.

There'd be no end to the madness.

Here's some sense from Cato's Michael Tanner:

But that's not all. Section 1239(b) of the bill also establishes a federal Health Benefits Advisory Committee, headed by the U.S. surgeon general, which will have the power to develop additional minimum benefit requirements. There is no limit to how extensive those future required benefits may be.

If your current health insurance doesn't meet all those requirements, you won't be immediately forced to drop your current insurance for a government-specified plan. But you would be required to switch if you lose your current insurance or "if significant changes are made to the existing health insurance plan."

More critically, for the 70 percent of us who get our insurance through work, those plans would all have to satisfy the government's benefit requirements within five years.

More likely, your employer will simply find that the increased cost and administrative burden is not worth it, and will dump you into the government-run "public option."

The Lewin Group, an independent actuarial firm, estimates that under the House version of the bill, as many as 89.5 million workers will simply lose their current employer-provided plan and be forced into government-run insurance.

I pay $1200 per month for a family plan. It's very good and I could pay less, but that's still a lot for what we use it for. I think I'm like a lot of Americans who use health insurance very little.

Insurance companies are making a killing on all fronts because they are incestuous with the hospitals and the doctor groups. The money source is the government (us) and the private payers (individuals and employers). The money gets processed by the insurance companies who take their cut, goes down to the hospitals and medical practice groups who take their cut, and finally down to the doctors, sup[port staff, pharma (who get their cuts at multiple levels), and hardware suppliers. The insurance companies then jump in again and take more from the doctors in the form of malpractice insurance, which leads us back to the lawyers, of course.

Don't tell me that the "system" we have in place is working. It needs to be blown up starting with insurance companies. They are not needed, but have built themselves defenses and mechanisms that keep them perpetually involved yet unnecessary.

I haven't even touched on the dynamic of compensation for doctors based on procedures as opposed to the health of their patients.

Click to expand...

Actually, as a foreigner I have to purchase health insurance to live where I am; it's mandatory. It's not expensive at all -- by current U.S. standards -- but then again it is very limited and health care here is not nearly as good as in the States, on the whole. When I lived in the States before moving -- 12 years ago -- I was paying about $400/month for a VERY high deductible plan; and that was only for three people.

I agree that the insurance company scam is outrageous, that the number of leeches and thieves that get attached to the entire billing and payment chain for medical services is outrageous -- must be ten middle men for every actual health practitioner, all getting their "cut".

And tort reform :steamed: : without getting these obscene legal vampires the hell out of the way, America WILL have a Cuban/Canadian style medical system sooner rather than later.